Solano County D.A. Helps Bring Jiffy Lube to Better Business Practices

Oct. 10, 2016
Jiffy Lube has agreed to pay $250,000 and quit certain business practices in response to a legal action taken against the firm by Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams and the Santa Clara County D.A.’s office, Solano County officials announced.Abrams announced that her office, together with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, resolved a civil enforcement action against MC LLC, dba, Jiffy Lube, for violations of two Business & Professions Code Sections dealing with unfair business practices and false advertising in their operations throughout the state.An undercover investigation was undertaken wherein cars were taken to various Jiffy Lube

Jiffy Lube has agreed to pay $250,000 and quit certain business practices in response to a legal action taken against the firm by Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams and the Santa Clara County D.A.’s office, Solano County officials announced.

Abrams announced that her office, together with the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, resolved a civil enforcement action against MC LLC, dba, Jiffy Lube, for violations of two Business & Professions Code Sections dealing with unfair business practices and false advertising in their operations throughout the state.

An undercover investigation was undertaken wherein cars were taken to various Jiffy Lube locations for an oil change to see if everything was on the up and up, said Diane Newman, Solano County Deputy District Attorney, Consumer and Environmental Crimes Unit.

“What was found was that sometimes they didn’t do what they said they did and sometimes they’d recommend service that wasn’t necessarily needed,” she said.“A lot of it was paperwork violations.”

Company officials have been “very cooperative,” Newman said.

“They’ve not admitting wrongdoing,” she said.

Company officials have agreed to have mystery shoppers periodically test and make sure employees are abiding by the agreement and to report their findings.

This is in addition to the $250,000 in civil penalties, costs and restitution, according to the announcement.

The same conduct dealt with in this case was also subject to a regulatory action by the Bureau of Automotive Repair, which was settled in July, it notes.

“The company worked cooperatively with both the District Attorneys’ Offices and the Bureau of Automotive Repair to remedy the problems and resolve the matter quickly,” according the announcement.

This article originally appeared on timesheraldonline.com